.
Your baseless repetitions is real trolling. My things are with base and weight
Stop being a stubborn. Flexibility is a sign of a life. Accept the fact. Fact is 6 justifications and many justifying wirking
Do homeopathic remedies contain measurable quantities of the "medicine"?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
Your baseless repetitions is real trolling. My things are with base and weight
Stop being a stubborn. Flexibility is a sign of a life. Accept the fact. Fact is 6 justifications and many justifying wirking
Stop being a troll.
Stop crap and trolling tupe of post in odd perceotion. Be unbiased.
I am being unbiased: your posts are full of crap; your "justifications", as repeatedly pointed out to you, are crap; your inability to do anything other than point to them as valid while not addressing the issues raised about them makes you a troll. These are not opinions coming from bias, but demonstrable properties of your posting.
So stop being a troll, and clear up the crap that you have been speaking.
Crap post and trolling because all your posts are non contributive to topic subject but are just meant to contradict me in your one sided odd perceotion by ignoring the justifications presented by me. Just done nothing except to contradict me. I do respect posts with weight like Janes and other posted contributive oosts.
Pointing out your mistakes, and your poor thinking, is contributive to the topic subject. I have quite clearly, and repeatedly, explained why I think your "justifications" are nothing of the sort. You have yet to address that. Instead you just point and go "look - I've given 6 justifications!"
You are therefore the one doing the ignoring. You are the one that is trolling. I have made this abundantly clear to you. Repeatedly. Yet you do nothing to address it. Instead you continue to troll.
I have contradicted some of the points you have made because in those cases you are wrong. Maybe if you don't post crap I won't have to contradict you. But for you to ignore the contradiction, the reasons given for that contradiction, and just bleat on about "6 justifications" etc, is just a demonstration of your trollish behaviour.
You clearly don't respect them enough to spell their username correctly.
And you'll note that they've given up on you. Because you talk crap. And you troll.I'm not so disciplined as to stay away. That's my weakness. But it doesn't change the fact that you post crap and act like a troll.
Whatever 6 justifications given be me are easiky observable in our routine life so need no explainations. Like eg. for a thirsty person if I say one glass of water is remedy, is quite justified and need no explaination. It is just common sense. Same is the case with 6 justifications. These also match with science. Studies and test also indicated it indirectly. Sililar is the case with its working. I ignored necause you asked to explain it just to let me down anyhow. You should have respected all my dynamic things and new but vaiid hnderstandings. Even really valid study about efficacy ehich I qioted earlier not respected by you. You simply made base of inappropriately done invalud studues, mostly all non individualized and short term. Morever you left all courtesy by somewhat abusing me and my dynamic oost with sense. Therefore I reverted similarily. Lastly it should be in your benefit never to become oerceived and one sided. Take all things with equanimity and in positive sense that any new understsnding is alwsys possible till science become absolute, final and complete.
Pointing out your mistakes, and your poor thinking, is contributive to the topic subject. I have quite clearly, and repeatedly, explained why I think your "justifications" are nothing of the sort. You have yet to address that. Instead you just point and go "look - I've given 6 justifications!"
roll.
Last edited:
Okay. I was also bit tired of just yes or no trolling.
Last edited:
Individualized homeopathy in a group of Egyptian asthmatic children
Conclusions: This study provides evidence that homeopathic medicines, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, improve severity of asthma in children. "
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23089218/
Look this study is appropriateky done. Individualized, prescribed experienced by homeopathic practitioners for long term to real patient's AS I INSISTED to get positive outcomes. Othereise studies are just invalid so can not be based.
You can insist all you want, but you'd still be wrong.
To wit: if you actually read the study you would have read the following:
"Limitations
This is a longitudinal observational study with no control group and suffers from the limitations of such studies. There are possible biases relating to differential drop out, regression to the mean, non-specific and placebo effects, and the [/color=blue]doctor-patient relationship in the subjective evaluation of the symptoms[/blue] on the part of the patients and their parents.
Conclusion
This study suggests that in a general pediatric practice setting, homeopathic treatment may be effective for children with asthma. Controlled studies should be conducted."
This is a longitudinal observational study with no control group and suffers from the limitations of such studies. There are possible biases relating to differential drop out, regression to the mean, non-specific and placebo effects, and the [/color=blue]doctor-patient relationship in the subjective evaluation of the symptoms[/blue] on the part of the patients and their parents.
Conclusion
This study suggests that in a general pediatric practice setting, homeopathic treatment may be effective for children with asthma. Controlled studies should be conducted."
I have coloured the relevant points you should take note of, and bolded the most significant ones. Hopefully they are self-explanatory, even for you.
In summary, even the writers of the paper acknowledge the limitations of their study, and recommend that which you seem to think is invalid.
Now, stop posting crap.
This thread is NOT about whether homeopathy works or not, but about (and look at the thread title if it helps remind you further) whether "homeopathic remedies contain measurable quantities of the medicine". And so far you have no answer to there not being any within the most potent homeopathic solutions, or even the weak ones of 30C or so.
Very little, if any, of what you have splattered this thread with has been on topic. If you want to set up a separate thread about the efficacy of homeopathy, do so. But stop trolling this thread with your crap.
I was knowing but,
It is upto one to look positive or negative side. I look whatever positive is available. If you just see only negative side nothing will be left anywhere. Moreover in view of different nature, effects and side effects of remedies, this much outcome is also important (practical observation). Few look good other crap.
Last edited:
If you were "knowing", then why did you post dishonestly about it?
You stated that it proves what you were insisting, and that "Othereise [sic] studies are just invalid so can not be based". The report itself says no such things and recognises its own limitations. You would do well to do the same, 'cos at the moment you're simply being dishonest, talking crap, and being a troll.
But hey, I think that's what we've come to expect from you, given your posting history thus far.
To show value of practical observation and practical study. Moreover odd perceotion based dishonesty and trolling is in your mind othereise you would had appreciated on full DBPC study I pisted previously.
Last edited:
Ignore list is better for us. Actually, I should had reported but just tollerated. Good Bye n thanks for all.
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3
How low evidences are noted in above meta-analysis? Because these are inappropriately done studues as I indicated here many time. Look these were non-individulized studies. It is not the way, how remedes are given in practice. So are invalid studies. Vakid studies should be individuakized, long term to real patients by competent homeopsthic experisnced practicisnors.
My previous post n quote was also just meant to show it, but taken otherwise in idiocy or vested interest or in some hypnotic stste of odd perceotion.
How low evidences are noted in above meta-analysis? Because these are inappropriately done studues as I indicated here many time. Look these were non-individulized studies. It is not the way, how remedes are given in practice. So are invalid studies. Vakid studies should be individuakized, long term to real patients by competent homeopsthic experisnced practicisnors.
My previous post n quote was also just meant to show it, but taken otherwise in idiocy or vested interest or in some hypnotic stste of odd perceotion.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So posting in a large font, in bold, makes your nonsense more persuasive, does it?
You always misunderstood me. Either side, I post, you contradict me. Leave it and contribute positively. Best is looking both side equally and arrive at a balanced or rational decision. Equanimity.So posting in a large font, in bold, makes your nonsense more persuasive, does it?
Last edited:
Conclusion
Yhis thread remain quite informative for new understsnding about homeooathy. So thanks tovall.
It is concluded that there was a chronic odd for considering homeopathic dilutions as plain water. Moleculer presence is justified by 6 justifications and test studies given by me. Working of remedues in its limitations is also justified by study, practical observations and exoerisnces, longevity of its existence, legal status of its studues and practice etc. Moreover its cost effictiveness and lower side rffects aid to its validity. Yes it is bit delicate, long term, natural and individuakized healing system so need comoetent snd experianced homeooaths for right prescription ehich is a complex mechanisn. Appropriate studies on its efficacy brought positive outcones wheress inappropriately done studies brought negative outcone. Since stimulus respinse by an effective stimuli, may it be neurological, physical, chemical, anatomical, materialistic, energetic, oral or otherwise can not be considered as placebo where just fake stimuli or lie effect
Hope you will agree on it.
Thanks.
Yhis thread remain quite informative for new understsnding about homeooathy. So thanks tovall.
It is concluded that there was a chronic odd for considering homeopathic dilutions as plain water. Moleculer presence is justified by 6 justifications and test studies given by me. Working of remedues in its limitations is also justified by study, practical observations and exoerisnces, longevity of its existence, legal status of its studues and practice etc. Moreover its cost effictiveness and lower side rffects aid to its validity. Yes it is bit delicate, long term, natural and individuakized healing system so need comoetent snd experianced homeooaths for right prescription ehich is a complex mechanisn. Appropriate studies on its efficacy brought positive outcones wheress inappropriately done studies brought negative outcone. Since stimulus respinse by an effective stimuli, may it be neurological, physical, chemical, anatomical, materialistic, energetic, oral or otherwise can not be considered as placebo where just fake stimuli or lie effect
Hope you will agree on it.
Thanks.